0
   

Oil company profits per gallon.....

 
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 10:33 am
And burning oil and coal dosent?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 10:45 am
Pa seems to be the only state that has opened itself for new O/G exploration. ALl your Uglican Govs have been obstructionist. Why arent we opening the In situ retorting of oil shales? Theres enough diesel in that stuff for about 3 TRILLION barrels net recoverable.
The processes are quite feasible and would drop diesel fuels to a neighborhood of 2$ a gallon at present costs or production at 80 bucks a barrel.
Diesel is easily made and desulfurized.

Im a stockholder and Ive had really great returns on oil and energy. with the exception of LNG of which storage has been overbuilt and production hasnt kept pace.

With the new discoveries of gas in Pa, were gonna be a major Nat Gas producer but its not LNG .
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:07 am
mysteryman wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
The automakers can make electric cars that can go 200 miles on a charge. This would get most drivers to where they want to go and back. Many ways to make electricity.


And all of them either pollute or are "eyesores".
BTW, "eyesores" is Ted Kennedy's reason for not wanting a wind farm off his island.


How would a electric car "pollute? The Battery?

How are they "eyesores". It's a freaking car!!!

PS: Ted Kennedy? Now there is an eye sore for you!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:13 am
He's saying that the electrical generating plants needed to provide the electricity to charge the batteries are polluting, and many of them are considered eyesores.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:13 am
woiyo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
The automakers can make electric cars that can go 200 miles on a charge. This would get most drivers to where they want to go and back. Many ways to make electricity.


And all of them either pollute or are "eyesores".
BTW, "eyesores" is Ted Kennedy's reason for not wanting a wind farm off his island.


How would a electric car "pollute? The Battery?

I was responding to your statement that[quote] Many ways to make electricity
.
You need power plants to make electricity, and any plant that uses fossil fuel (coal, gas, etc) pollutes,so there would really be no change in the amount of air pollution.
If you burn trash to make electricity, you then have the ash from that, along with anything that wont burn, that you must dispose of.[/color]

How are they "eyesores". It's a freaking car!!!

And some of them are ugly as hell!!
But I wasnt talking about the cars.



PS: Ted Kennedy? Now there is an eye sore for you![/quote]

I 100% agree with that!
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:14 am
Quote:
So carmakers in Japan and Europe are smarter than those in the US and Canada?


it's interesting to note that both GM and FORD built some very fuel efficient cars in europe .
hbg
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:22 am
mysteryman wrote:
woiyo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
The automakers can make electric cars that can go 200 miles on a charge. This would get most drivers to where they want to go and back. Many ways to make electricity.


And all of them either pollute or are "eyesores".
BTW, "eyesores" is Ted Kennedy's reason for not wanting a wind farm off his island.


How would a electric car "pollute? The Battery?

I was responding to your statement that[quote] Many ways to make electricity
.
You need power plants to make electricity, and any plant that uses fossil fuel (coal, gas, etc) pollutes,so there would really be no change in the amount of air pollution.
If you burn trash to make electricity, you then have the ash from that, along with anything that wont burn, that you must dispose of.[/color]

How are they "eyesores". It's a freaking car!!!

And some of them are ugly as hell!!
But I wasnt talking about the cars.



PS: Ted Kennedy? Now there is an eye sore for you!


I 100% agree with that![/quote]

Got it. However, if the WIND FARMS could generate the electricity, then we could trade one eyesore (Kennedy) for another?

Seriously, the answer in my view is fuel efficient cars only be sold in the US. If GM or Ford make fuel efficient cars and sell them in Europe, that is because either the citizens or the govt have put standards in place. Same thing has to happen here.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:22 am
i grudgingly have to give some credit to GM (after all , i drive a 1999 OLDS-INTRIGUE - a pretty peppy performer - but a little hard on gas in winter city driving) .

Quote:
An European car that hasn't been dumbed down
JEREMY CATO

December 20, 2007

LOS ANGELES -- Toyota has been selling Corollas around the world for decades. Same for Volkswagen's Golf and Rabbit. The Mazda3? Ditto. And so on.

Now, in a move that represents either desperation or inspiration, General Motors is doing what the competition has been doing for a long time. GM is going global with the Opel Astra.

Here in Canada and down in the United States, the new car is being called the Saturn Astra and the most basic four-door hatchback starts at $17,900. The sportiest two-door hatchback tops out at $21,225.

Dan Burton, Saturn marketing manager, says Saturn is coming late, pretty much unannounced and bearing the baggage of the sad-sack Ion -my words, not his - as it launches this '08 Astra, so the pricing is ultra-competitive.

He argues the base Astra XE has a $2,120 advantage over the Honda Civic DX, factoring standard equipment on both models. The same exercise brings the Astra XE's "advantage" to $920 versus the Mazda3 GS and $2,510 for the Astra XE compared with the Rabbit.

Naturally, if you visit a Mazda dealer, or a Honda dealer, or a Volkswagen dealer, they'll do their best to refute Burton, who says his new Astra has all sorts of stuff - AM-FM CD with six speakers, power windows with express-down on all windows, OnStar communications, tire-pressure monitor, five head restraints and so on - "you don't find on the competition."

What we've never seen before from Saturn, or any of GM's other divisions, is a small car that sells itself not just on price, but on performance, too. Shocking.

Yes, the '08 Astra will entertain you. No one ever said that about the Ion - unless you are talking about the weird design or astonishingly wide panel gaps.

GM has done the unthinkable for GM: bring a European car to North America without "dumbing" it down. Those are my words, not lead development engineer Don Straitiff's, but it's the point of his engineering presentation here.

"It's just fun to drive and easily out-handles the Civic and the Mazda3," he says.

Hmm. This is the same company, mind you, that a few years back took a very decent Opel Vectra and turned it into a lumpy Cadillac Catera.

To be fair, GM isn't the first Detroit-based auto maker to flub an attempt at a world car. Here, Ford comes to mind. Remember the Focus we saw at the early part of this decade? A fine driver's car, and it looked good, too.

Unfortunately, in transferring production of the European-designed Focus to Mexico, the quality control got lost in translation. What had been Euro-chic became Euro-trash. Despite ride and handling that had even Consumer Reports' testers singing a happy tune, the Focus took a beating for lax quality. Ten recalls in the first two years will do that to you.

There is an updated 2008 Focus out there and it has a whiz-bang gizmo called Sync - developed in conjunction with Microsoft - that apparently simplifies the use of many electronic features. No word yet on whether you need to restart the Focus - reboot it - if something get out of sync.

The latest Focus is many things, but a stylistic tour de force it is not. Unless, of course, you liked the good ol' Escort of the 1990s. If so, you are in heaven.

Excuse the digression, but there's a point and it is that GM is bucking Detroit's status quo.

Dr. Johnson once said nothing so concentrates the mind like the thought of the hangman in a fortnight. Well, Detroit's auto makers are heading straight to the gallows if they insist on doing what they've done for the last 30 years. The Astra speaks to GM's desire for survival.

Yes, it's different for GM to launch an Astra that is more or less identical to the European Opel Astra in every significant way. That means it was designed in Ruesselsheim, Germany, tuned for the autobahn and is built in Antwerp, Belgium.

It also means Saturn officials expect their Astra here to get the same outstanding safety scores they've earned in Europe. Safety features include six standard airbags, including roof-rail, head curtain airbags and thorax/pelvic airbags for front-seat passengers.

Among other safety features, the Astra has active head restraints and a pedal release system. Electronic stability control with traction control is standard on all two-door Astras and available on four-door hatchbacks.

That's all well and good, but few people are willing to buy a safe but ugly car. No problem here.

The Astra has a sporty look riding on a long wheelbase and wide stance. The sheet metal looks taut and modern, with a strong look from the rear.

Mechanically, the Astra isn't as sophisticated as its main rivals in Europe. The basic torsion-beam rear suspension is nothing fancy, yet Straitiff and other GM engineers have done well in terms of ride and handling. Ride comfort is just fine for this segment, body roll is well-controlled and the electro-hydraulic power steering is relatively precise, though somewhat dead on-centre.

The only engine is a 138-horsepower four-banger and it is peppy and fuel-efficient. The manual five-speed changes gears smoothly and the brakes operate with slickness and consistency. The four-speed automatic is also quite satisfactory. Note, though, that the industry is moving to six-speed manuals and five- and six-speed automatics.

Overall, this is an amusing car to hustle through corners and, other than some road noise at higher speeds, the Astra is very good on long highway stretches.

The cabin will take some getting used to for most North Americans. There is a distinct lack of cup holders, for instance. Those up front share one. That's right, you coffee-drinking commuters, one cup holder!

The black-and-grey colour scheme of my tester's interior - hard plastic all around - was downright dreary, too. Oh, and the manually adjustable four-way seats work, once you figure out how to manage the knobs and levers and whatnot.

The Astra also comes with an irritating automatic feature for the door locks. I'd go into details, but let me just say this: You will find yourself manually unlocking the doors more often than you might think.

The Astra will do nothing but good things for Saturn and even the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada liked it enough to vote it best new small car of 2008. It's no Ion.

[email protected]

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:27 am
woiyo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
woiyo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
The automakers can make electric cars that can go 200 miles on a charge. This would get most drivers to where they want to go and back. Many ways to make electricity.


And all of them either pollute or are "eyesores".
BTW, "eyesores" is Ted Kennedy's reason for not wanting a wind farm off his island.


How would a electric car "pollute? The Battery?

I was responding to your statement that[quote] Many ways to make electricity
.
You need power plants to make electricity, and any plant that uses fossil fuel (coal, gas, etc) pollutes,so there would really be no change in the amount of air pollution.
If you burn trash to make electricity, you then have the ash from that, along with anything that wont burn, that you must dispose of.[/color]

How are they "eyesores". It's a freaking car!!!

And some of them are ugly as hell!!
But I wasnt talking about the cars.



PS: Ted Kennedy? Now there is an eye sore for you!


I 100% agree with that!


Got it. However, if the WIND FARMS could generate the electricity, then we could trade one eyesore (Kennedy) for another?

I have no problem with that at all, it would be doing the US a favor just to get rid of Teddy.

Seriously, the answer in my view is fuel efficient cars only be sold in the US. If GM or Ford make fuel efficient cars and sell them in Europe, that is because either the citizens or the govt have put standards in place. Same thing has to happen here.[/quote]

But then you are entering the realm of trying to tell people how to live their lives.
If only fuel efficient cars were sold in the US, what are you going to do with the people that have and still drive older cars?
Are you going to tell them that their gas guzzlers are illegal?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:31 am
farmerman wrote:
Pa seems to be the only state that has opened itself for new O/G exploration. ALl your Uglican Govs have been obstructionist. Why arent we opening the In situ retorting of oil shales? Theres enough diesel in that stuff for about 3 TRILLION barrels net recoverable. ....


You're 100% right, and there's no possible excuse for that kind of behavior when we're sending money at the rate of $100/barrel to nations whose people and religious officials want to destroy us. I'm still waiting to hear some sort of a theory as to how Ike and FDR would have prosecuted WW-II while they were buying oil from Adolf Hitler at $100/barrel.

We need to go after every possible source of energy available to us as if a war were in progress.

The other really big thing we could and should do and which would be easy to implement would be the neighborhood work site concept, i.e. get rid of half or more of the commuting.

Energy will only solve so much of the problem; at some point the traffic nightmares are going to bring us to a point at which no nation could afford the psychiatric bills.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:31 am
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

This breaks out the cost of a gallon of fuel by who gets what.

If oil companies are making a profit of 25 cents a gallon then they are making damn good money on what they have invested in refining the gallon.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 11:38 am
Quote:
Are you going to tell them that their gas guzzlers are illegal?


many things have been declared illegal by the U.S. government - any special status for gas guzzlers needed ?
hbg

btw. i doubt that more fuel-efficient cars will make a real breakthrough in the U.S. or canada unless the gasoline price starts to seriously hurt people.
fuel-efficient cars don't have to be lame ducks . there are many new technologies already on the market that squeeze plenty of power out of small engines . no doubt , the purchase price for fuel-efficient cars would be higher than for gas guzzlers , but with the long distance we often drive in north-america , we should be able to recover that money over the life of the car .
hbg
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 12:03 pm
mysteryman wrote:
woiyo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
woiyo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
The automakers can make electric cars that can go 200 miles on a charge. This would get most drivers to where they want to go and back. Many ways to make electricity.


And all of them either pollute or are "eyesores".
BTW, "eyesores" is Ted Kennedy's reason for not wanting a wind farm off his island.


How would a electric car "pollute? The Battery?

I was responding to your statement that[quote] Many ways to make electricity
.
You need power plants to make electricity, and any plant that uses fossil fuel (coal, gas, etc) pollutes,so there would really be no change in the amount of air pollution.
If you burn trash to make electricity, you then have the ash from that, along with anything that wont burn, that you must dispose of.[/color]

How are they "eyesores". It's a freaking car!!!

And some of them are ugly as hell!!
But I wasnt talking about the cars.



PS: Ted Kennedy? Now there is an eye sore for you!


I 100% agree with that!


Got it. However, if the WIND FARMS could generate the electricity, then we could trade one eyesore (Kennedy) for another?

I have no problem with that at all, it would be doing the US a favor just to get rid of Teddy.

Seriously, the answer in my view is fuel efficient cars only be sold in the US. If GM or Ford make fuel efficient cars and sell them in Europe, that is because either the citizens or the govt have put standards in place. Same thing has to happen here.


But then you are entering the realm of trying to tell people how to live their lives.
If only fuel efficient cars were sold in the US, what are you going to do with the people that have and still drive older cars?
Are you going to tell them that their gas guzzlers are illegal?
[/quote]

The Govt already tells us "how to live our lives" in many ways by regulating and taxing activity.

Govt establishes how:
1) Buildings are made
2) Airplanes
3) Homes are made
4) Food is grown and distributed
5) When drugs can be sold (perscription drugs that is)

Govt is already telling car mfgs that they must make cars that get so many MPG in 10 years. They have been saying that for 30 years and relatively nothing has been done.

All I am saying is that a tax of 100% be placed on any car sold in America that does not get 40MPG by next year. Those who have old gas cars can do what they want with them.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 12:07 pm
Quote:
All I am saying is that a tax of 100% be placed on any car sold in America that does not get 40MPG by next year. Those who have old gas cars can do what they want with them.


So, you would place a retroactive tax on any of this years models that dont get sold by next year?

What about trucks?
Are you gonna place a 100% tax on them also?

What about any other diesel powered vehicle, or on any other gas powered vehicle that doesnt meet your fuel standards?
Where do you draw the line?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 12:10 pm
parados wrote:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

This breaks out the cost of a gallon of fuel by who gets what.

If oil companies are making a profit of 25 cents a gallon then they are making damn good money on what they have invested in refining the gallon.


That is misleading, because while oil companies vacuum dollars out of our pockets they are not the only ones to do so
Quote:
Many analysts believe these speculative investments have significantly raised the price of oil futures. While it is not possible to determine the precise dollar increase in the price of oil attributable to market speculation, some analysts have estimated that speculation has added as much as $20-$25 to the price of each barrel of oil, thereby pushing up oil from about $50 to around $70 per barrel. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently stated, "with the demand from the investment community, oil prices have moved up sooner than they would have otherwise."

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=257862
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 12:15 pm
what is the canadian oil company reaping the benefits of the oil prices
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 12:21 pm
Yes, speculators have driven up the cost of crude oil but the major oil companies run their own oil fields and aren't paying the cost of crude that the independents that have to buy on the market are. The large companies reap the benefits without suffering the costs.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 12:40 pm
parados wrote:
Yes, speculators have driven up the cost of crude oil but the major oil companies run their own oil fields and aren't paying the cost of crude that the independents that have to buy on the market are. The large companies reap the benefits without suffering the costs.


They do? where? The oil companies were thrown out if the middle east years ago, and in places such as the north sea and Russia American companies operate joint ventures with local companies. Mexican crude is produced by the Mexican oil company. The African fields are supposed to be joint ventures but the Africans are so corrupt in effect the fields are American, but with substantial payola.


were you are right is the American crude for the most part is bought by long term contracts, but those contracts can factor in the spot price. Contract oil is usually cheaper than oil bough on the spot market, and I think it is right that oil companies who buy on contract and refine themselves often are in a position to make huge profits if they price their product as if it were made from spot market oil, which they do. Oil companies who buy contract oil always match the higher gas price driven by those who buy crude on the spot market. What consumers hear about is the spot price, so when that goes up oil companies are free to raise the price at the pump because people expect it to go up. These companies are not interested in fair pricing based upon costs, they charge as much as the market will bear.

Edit. I can not document this at the moment but I believe that most opec nations are limiting long term contracts so as to put more oil on the spot markets, where prices tend to be higher. Relatively fixed price long term contracts go to favored customers, which are going to be the ones who cooperate in driving up the global price of crude so that the opec nations can take more money out of the global economy.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 01:43 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
All I am saying is that a tax of 100% be placed on any car sold in America that does not get 40MPG by next year. Those who have old gas cars can do what they want with them.


So, you would place a retroactive tax on any of this years models that dont get sold by next year?

What about trucks?
Are you gonna place a 100% tax on them also?

What about any other diesel powered vehicle, or on any other gas powered vehicle that doesnt meet your fuel standards?
Where do you draw the line?


CARS!! Any Car available for sale that does not get 40 MPG...100% tax. Gas or diesel. Include light duty trucks in there is you want to. I do not care.

How else can you force GM to make feul efficient cars if there is no incentive for them to do it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2008 03:14 pm
woiyo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
All I am saying is that a tax of 100% be placed on any car sold in America that does not get 40MPG by next year. Those who have old gas cars can do what they want with them.


So, you would place a retroactive tax on any of this years models that dont get sold by next year?

What about trucks?
Are you gonna place a 100% tax on them also?

What about any other diesel powered vehicle, or on any other gas powered vehicle that doesnt meet your fuel standards?
Where do you draw the line?


CARS!! Any Car available for sale that does not get 40 MPG...100% tax. Gas or diesel. Include light duty trucks in there is you want to. I do not care.

You didnt answer my question.
If GM builds a car today, BEFORE your 100% tax, and that car isnt sold by the time your tax goes into effect, will you still tax that car?
If you would, isnt that punishing GM for abiding by the law?

You cant punish GM for violating a law that isnt in effect yet.

Are you also saying that other vehicles dont pollute, or are you saying that they dont count?


How else can you force GM to make feul efficient cars if there is no incentive for them to do it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2025 at 06:10:55